Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Moore County commissioners agree to craft letters asking why down‑zoning language was added to Senate Bill 382
Summary
After a Pinehurst mayor and municipal leaders urged relief, commissioners directed staff to draft letters to state lawmakers asking why a provision affecting down‑zoning and nonconforming uses was added to Senate Bill 382 (session law 2024‑57) and to seek timely relief or clarification.
Patrick Pizzella, mayor of Pinehurst, urged the Moore County Board of Commissioners during public comment to oppose a provision that appeared late in Senate Bill 382 and now sits in session law 2024‑57.
Pizzella told the board that "somebody…added a page that dealt with the local community's use of down zoning and non conforming use certificates" and said the provision includes a 180‑day retroactive clause. He said Pinehurst's council adopted a resolution on March 25 opposing that section and asked the county to support efforts to rescind or amend it.
During new business, staff presented a letter from municipal leaders asking the county to join their opposition. Planning staff and several commissioners described the contested provision as broadening the definition of down‑zoning, expanding vested‑rights protections and creating practical obstacles for implementing comprehensive plan policies into the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) without owner consent.
Commissioners debated options. One commissioner suggested the county manager draft a letter asking the legislature why the provision was added; another urged that the county ask for swift relief so municipalities are not left operating under the new session law while additional legislation is considered. Representative Jackson (previously reported to the board) was cited as indicating that follow‑up legislation or clarifying bills might be introduced during the session.
By consensus the board directed staff to draft letters to the county's legislative delegation asking for the origin and intent of the down‑zoning provision and seeking timely correction or clarification; staff said they would return a proposed letter at a future meeting for the board's consideration. No formal repeal or resolution vote was taken at the meeting.
The board’s next procedural step is that staff will prepare draft letters for the commissioners’ review and possible formal action at a future meeting.
